Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Is the State incapable of doing anything?
Many have asked me, knowing that I call myself a libertarian, if I think "everything" should be moved out of the hands of the State? Can't the State do anything according to my philosophy? Isn't everything the State does done badly?

Of course I have to answer with a no - the State can do this and that. Many who also call themselves libertarians think the State should run the police and the court-system, and even say that no-one else can do that in a fair and just way. I tend to agree with this, but I'm not sure if I can say that that's the only thing the State can do and should do.

How can we compare the State with the private sector? The price is a factor - an important one but not the only one. The less something costs, the fewer hours of work it took for the user/buyer to have the means to acquire/enjoy. Another factor is quality, the third might be the satisfaction of the staff in a certain sector, and the fourth of course the satisfaction of the users/buyers.

Historically, the private sector completely destroys the State in every way in every comparison. The staff and users are happier in the free market, the prices are lower, and the quality stands no comparison. It hardly matters what examples are taken - health-care, factory-operation, supervision, manufacturing and so and so on - if the State has something in its hands, and therefore doesn't allow the free market and the free consumer to shape, encourage, punish or reward in an environment of competition and free, unforced choices, then deterioration is the result. Patients are no longer given the best service for the most favorable price. Students are not shaped by the needs of the market with the help of the flexibility of the free enterprise. Drivers must use roads they hardly fit on, and non-drivers are forced to pay for roads they don't use. Money ( = time, energy and health of working people) is moved from one to another without any permissions being given, and it doesn't take a specialist to figure out that only thieves and criminals share that activity with the State.

The State can do a few things. It might be able to run the road-system if its a question of having roads which are okay and keep the standard there. The State is very well suited to distribute money between artists, and keep alive artforms which no-one is willing to pay for voluntarily any more. The State can do certain functions well if they are extremely well defined - the police and court-system fit that description since the law is written and no way around them. However, the State has never and will never run a health care, school system or anything that has to do with food production or distribution in a way that doesn't allow for very drastic improvements. In those areas I will not tolerate the low standards the State is so famous for in all its other activities.

What is my answer then? Can't the State do anything? Does everything have to be privatized and sold to parties on the free market? The answer is: In fields we can live with low standards and not the best of services I think the State will do a very fine job. In fields which touch our health, our freedom, essential products and services and our comfort I think we should keep the State as far away as possible.

No comments: